When it comes to education, healthcare and minimum wage, I prefer Bernie, but when it comes to illegal immigration, Islamic extremism and offshoring, I prefer Trump.

Rahter than seeing Bernie and Trump as opposites, I see them as two sides of a, more populist coin, in opposition to the elitist coin, represented by Hillary on the one side, and Cruz, Kasich and Rubio on the other.

It's too bad there wasn't a candidate in favor of more of the right kind of nationalism and democratic socialism.

Gloominary wrote:Healthy and happy workers (like the ones in say Germany, who work less than Americans and Brits but're more productive) manufacture high quality products, not sickly, suicidal ones.

The only people benefitting from domestic and foreign cheap labor, is the wealthy internationalists, not 1st world consumers, nor 3rd world producers.

We should be boycotting China, and corporations who hire illegals at home.

No! the only country benefiting from EU funds and manufacturing is/was Germany.. obviously why they don't need to work as long as Brits and Americans.

I am not anti-German.. I have French-Germanic grand-parents, but the UK will not tolerate being sold down the river by the preceding then Socialist government who signed our rights away.. along with the rest of unassuming Europe.

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

From what I understand German wages for manufacturing jobs are relatively low which is why the car industries are always booming. Germans seem to be very content indeed to work as semislaves and this is what reduces worker quality in all the rest of Europe. Like illegals driving down wages in a weak economy Germans drive wages down in a German economy.

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. ~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

Gloominary wrote:Forcing your employees to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week in hazardous, perilous conditions for a bowl of rice a day in a country with grossly substandard quality control, certainly doesn't increase the quality of products being manufactured, it decreases it, it merely increases the quantity, not to mention, it's inhumane.

Healthy and happy workers (like the ones in say Germany, who work less than Americans and Brits but're more productive) manufacture high quality products, not sickly, suicidal ones.

The only people benefitting from domestic and foreign cheap labor, is the wealthy internationalists, not 1st world consumers, nor 3rd world producers.

We should be boycotting China, and corporations who hire illegals at home.

That's how the free markets fail because boycotts don't work because people only care about price

If you think Mestizos, Mulattos and Muslims are going to treat whites as kindly as whites treat them today, when we're the minority, and they have most of the wealth and power, you got another thing coming.Mestizos and Mulattos will say, the only way we can achieve genuine parity, is for whites to be brought to the brink of extinction the way Native Americans were,

I have been convinced for some time that the reason Natives were brought so close to extinction is they were good for neither friend nor slave, to put it bluntly. Had they been more "easy-going", I think they could have assimilated in some way and survived with larger representation today.

The simple lesson to be learned is: be nice and you won't be driven to extinction.

There is no war on white women because the white women relate to the brown women and don't mind inclusiveness. Look at how many white women were elected to the House. There were 2 women elected for every man and at least half the women were white.

The war is on white men, but not just white men since gays are ok; it's the bullheaded ones struggling to retain power in order to force their proclivities (drug wars, christian values, one must struggle to live, get healthcare, education, etc) on a population that doesn't want it.

If you'd simply concede that people deserve a min standard of living (health, education, food, shelter) instead of being unable to stomach people getting something for nothing, end prohibitions based on the bible, then people will stop cheering your extinction.

Do what Bernie does and they will love you! Bernie has the highest approval rating of any senator in spite of being an old white guy.

or enslaved the way African Americans were,

But they survived.

and many, or most Muslims will say, finally we can finish the Islamization of the west our ancestors began.

All I can think is americanized women. Bring them here and they'll become feminists in time. It's like a contagious disease. I can't see america being saddled with that goofy religion; it's worse than Christianity!

Mass immigration (especially illegal, but also legal, and multicultural rather than assimilatory) can easily undermine a nations integrity, a prime example being Rome.Just as the Roman empire fell to German immigrants, who weren't assimilated, the US and EU may very well fall to Mexican and/or Muslim immigrants.

But Romans still exist right? I think the German blondes had more to worry about.

They're trying to equal the playing field between weak and strong independent of color. Color is irrelevant.

Color, like the millions of other ways the races differ from one another, from cranial capacity to what diseases they're susceptible to, is relevant.Some colors are better for surviving in some, many, most or all environments than others.While every race has its strengths and weaknesses, and what constitutes a strength or weakness is somewhat dynamic, some races are a little, or a lot stronger than others.There's no such thing as absolute parity between the races, just as there's none between individuals.It's not a case of if, but how much stronger is X race than Y.

Why did the Vikings disappear off Greenland but the Inuit did not?

There is no such thing as strong or weak, but optimized for an environment or not.

Conservatism is all about disparity and it's a core premise. Disparity of race; disparity of wealth; disparity of privilege. That's what it's about. Progressivism is the opposite.

If that's the case, than both are equally irrational.When disparity is earned, and/or when it benefits who, or what I care about most, than I'm in favor of it, and conversely when it's not earned, and/or when it detriments who, or what I care about most, than I'm opposed to it.

Luck can't be earned.

You're essentially saying that Bezos should have all that disparity because he found a way to capitalize on millions of people which is essentially saying that disparity is deserved because disparity is caused.

No I'm not saying anyone deserves to be bombed, but that whites are a bigger terroristic threat than browns.

Firstly, while white countries can easily dominate most non-white countries when they choose to exert themselves, for they're more wealthy and powerful, I'm not so sure whites start more wars, or kill more people in war than non-whites.Secondly, by terrorism, I meant mass murder committed by civilians for political gain, not by militaries.

I was talking about domestic terror and not military invasions. The premise for bombing brown people is they cause trouble in the US, but that isn't so because the whites are causing all the trouble.

911 wouldn't have happened if not for our presence in the middle east,

Tell that to victims of Islamic terror living in India, and all over the third world.

I don't know much about islamic terror in 3rd world countries.

No it wouldn't've happened if we had a Muslim ban.

Muslim ban or brown people ban? They could have recruited white muslims to fly the planes. And how do you ban a religion?

but what's the motive of Paddock in Vegas and all the other white terrorists shooting innocent people?

Muslims have been trying to Islamize Europe, Subsaharan Africa and South Asia for over a thousand years.

Ok I guess so, but I don't see that desire progressing into the future. Americanized women is my evidence.

You seem to be under the impression that only whites oppress others.I've got news for you, not just a couple or a few, but millions of individuals within other races want to subjugate, or destroy whites, and others.In a roundabout way, you're the white supremacist here, for you believe only whites have been, are, and will be able to oppress other races.Reasonable whites have to take steps to prevent, and prepare for a time when they may be oppressed again, which, by the looks of it, may not be far off.

No I'm not saying only white oppress, but only whites have been oppressing... from what I can see.

Chris Hedges has a theory to explain that and I think I've mentioned it here before that whites are the only ones who fall for the myth of the american dream while the other races have accepted from a young age that they have to eat shit, so they don't have a midlife crisis and decide to shoot-up a crowd. That also explains why whites commit suicide more.

Perhaps Paddock's terrorism can in part be blamed on white genocide, third wave feminism, the breakdown of the family, and the overthrow of western civilization, maybe all that helped drive him to it.

Maybe, but all I know is he was a white guy.

If you want to talk temperament, look at the Irish. Arabs are just uneducated. What's excuse of the Irish?

The Irish aren't known for committing terror against anyone other than the British, because they were oppressed by Brits for centuries, Brits took Northern Ireland from them.However nowadays, the Irish rarely terrorize Brits.

Why do they call them "The Fighting Irish"? Why can't that Irishman in the UFC keep it in his pants? They all seem to be loose cannons and proud of it.

And uneducated?You seem to think education is the answer to everything.

Isn't it? If any question is answered, then someone has been educated lol. So yes, education is the answer to everything. I realized a long time ago that it's impossible to be angry if I have a good understanding on what's going on.

At one time, Arabs were (far) more educated than Subsaharan Africans, Europeans and South Asians, but that didn't stop the former one from trying to takeover the latter three, did it?

Being more-smart is not the same as sufficiently smart. One idiot can be smarter than another idiot, but still be an idiot.

And look what humans have done to nature, as we've gotten more educated about it.

Seems like we treat it better now that we've gotten more educated about it.

Often we study things precisely because we want to learn how to more thoroughly dominate them.

Dominate doesn't mean exterminate. If anything, it means coddle because if it meant destroy, then there would be nothing left to dominate.

Education can teach us there's limits to how much we can consume, but it doesn't necessarily stop us from consuming things to the limit, or beyond, hence modernity.

Is the uneducated or educated person more likely to recycle?

That recipe is guaranteed to backfire. Show me one instance where prosperity has not caused less reproduction. Show me one instance where adversity has not caused population explosions.

Less reproduction isn't good enough, they shouldn't reproduce at all, certainly not as much or more than people who work.

While the average person living in poverty may have 4 kids, and the middle class 2, the upper class may have 1.9, so there may be a cut off, where greater affluence increasingly doesn't impact birthrates.

Decline in birthrates may have more to do with greater access to contraception than affluence itself, which means we should be promoting contraception instead of affluence, as affluence harms the environment.

No, it's a survival mechanism exhibited by all organisms. When life is stressful, it's best to reproduce as much as possible in hope of some genetic mutation to overcome the environmental challenge. If you want lots of brown people, all you have to do is make life hard on them.

Greater affluence may still harm the environment more than reduced birthrates helps it.

I'm not talking about affluence, but stress. Affluence seems like rich to me, which is above and beyond simply removing stress.

Some classes and races, for cultural or genetic reasons, may have more kids than others, so even if we were to lift them out of poverty, they're birthrate may still exceed their death rate, again, see how eastern Europeans, Russians and Chinese are poor, yet have a low birthrate, and yes, while the Chinese have come a ways, they still have a long, long way to go to catch up with the west and Japan, assuming they can that is, some (sub)races may not be able to, Chinese GDP per capita is still several times lower than the west and Japan, I mean China is still trailing Brazil, Mexico and Russia.

Well China had a 1-child policy for a long time and the Russians today are better off than the ones from the past which explains the lower birthrate today. I still haven't seen exception to the rule.

According to Canadian psychologist Philippe Rushton, whites and east Asians are more K selective (nurturing offspring over quantity of offspring) than other races.I mean, is it any wonder only East Asians (Japanese and South Koreans) have been able to emulate the west's success?They have the biggest brains and highest iQs.

Where did the big brains come from? So we have 2 variables: big brains and k-selection which = nurturing environment (abundance of fatty food).

Prosperity = more environmental laws for conservatives to complain about. It's illegal to cut down a hardwood greater than 8 inches at breast height without permission in many if not all municipalities. In MN, it's illegal to ride an atv through a bog on your own land.

And environmental laws prevent unnecessary prosperity, as they ought to, unnecessary prosperity is the enemy of the environment.We shouldn't consume a hell of a lot more than we need to.

That makes sense.

The evidence doesn't support that. Go on a dating site and see who has the most kids (whites). See if you can find any browns or yellows with kids.

It's a fact brown people have 2 or 3 times more kids than whites and East Asians.

Are there any stats of people earning less than poverty level income and number children by race? Your stat probably totals the number of white kids and divides by the number of white people, some of whom are rich and childless. I'd like to confine it to poor people only and then make the comparison across race. I'd be willing to bet it's equal or even that poor whites have more kids than poor browns. Mexicans do tend to have big families, but they aren't single mothers. If you find a single woman with 5 kids, odds are she is white.

Yes and they've abandoned it now since the people are prosperous and not having enough kids.

One exception doesn't disprove the rule, whites gave us the modern world, some races haven't given us anything.

Yes, whites took advantage of their advantages.

I don't see it outside of an asteroid impact or something.

Thousands of scientists beg to differ.

Scientist could give odds for an asteroid impact, volcanoes, pandemic, the earth drifting into or out of a galactic arm, but they can't say we're going to kill ourselves because that's pure speculation.

AI won't take over. They're too intelligent. Intelligence = peace.

Tell that to the thousands of species that've gone extinct, and the thousands of species that've been subjugated, thanks to man.

Man is not very smart. AI will exceed iq 100.

Jacque Fresco said it was possible in the 70s

They also told us we'd cure AIDS and cancer by now, and I'm still waiting for my flying car and my ray gun.

There is too much profit in not curing disease. If anyone cured cancer, they'd be executed. What's possible and what will happen are two different things. It's possible to have a cashless society, but people won't let it happen because there is no profit in it.

Nah we just need the old folks to get out of the way. Go fishing and stay out of the voting booth.

Young folks tend to get more conservative as they age.

It worked the opposite with me. I started conservative and then did my own research.

There's a time to progress, and a time to conserve, in the 21st century, now more than ever, we need to find creative ways to conserve, not only the environment, but what remains of our race and, some of its customs, not progress.

What do we need to conserve? Everything recycles.

Wealth disparity correlates with the decline in inventions.

Resources allow creative people to be more creative.Creative people should have more resources than uncreative people, if we want to increase creativity.

How can we tell who is creative and who isn't until they have the resources?

I agree that a country without borders is not a country (for the same reason infinity doesn't exist), but this country was founded on immigration and hardly anyone is indigenous.

It was founded on legal, European immigration till 1965.And indigenous is somewhat of a social construct (well, perhaps everything in science, and thought is, but perhaps this in particular).How many millennia, or centuries does something have to be confined to a land, with no, or 'little' external influence before becoming indigenous?Europeans have been settling the Americas at least since the Vikings over a millennium ago.And so called 'Native Americans' are more European now than Native American after centuries of miscegenation with us, which's why I call them mestizos.

I don't entirely disagree with you as it does seem a waste for one guy to tie-up resources, but I think you're presupposing that "development" is better than undeveloped unless by "developed" you mean managed (like a state park which is undeveloped but managed).

I have mixed feelings about this and would probably have to judge on a case by case basis. If a guy is hoarding land with no real plan for it and isn't managing the land, but letting invasive species take over, then maybe there is a case to be made that he should be compelled to justify his continued ownership if the land could be put under better stewardship by someone else.

I also feel this way about money in that if someone is hoarding money with no productive use for it then maybe the community by virtue of numbers should gangup and take it back. An example is Bezos using his fortune to explore space rather than feed people on earth or some other more pressing need that could be addressed with that money rather than doing what NASA does anyway. One man shouldn't have control of that many of society's resources. I'm not against private property, but that is too much.

If someone doesn't develop their land soon, say within a year, even if they're paying taxes on it, it should be returned to the commons.From there, either government can develop, or designate it a national park/nature reserve, or another private entity can develop it, or it can be left undeveloped until someone does.

What do you mean by develop? And how is land different from masses of money that isn't utilized?

I don't disagree, but that is a slippery slope that gives me pause. When we say that ownership is contingent upon obscure notions like "productive use", then ownership is determined by one's ability to perpetually defend their position in court against an onslaught of people who claim they could be more productive with it. I could assume ownership of this site merely by claiming I could serve society better than Carleas, so anything would be up for grabs based on pipe dreams.

I just meant that someone has to, umm, unambiguously, if you will, develop land, in order to own it, not that it should belong to whoever claims they can develop it most.

So it's not about who can do the best with the land, but who will do "something" with the land. What constitutes "something"?

Morality went out the window when we said might makes right. Anyway, society, by virtue of numbers, determines what morality is, so morality is just an intermediate step bridging the gap between might and right which fools us into believing that morality isn't still might making right.

Might is to right what apples are to oranges.Might is about what you can do, right is about what you, or others think you, or others ought to do.Not everyone with might does the same thing with it, psychopaths have different considerations than men and women of compassion and conscience (which's not to say men and women of compassion and conscience can't also be selfish, or that compassion and conscience are necessarily incompatible with selfishness, or that compassion and conscience can't manifest differently in different people or circumstances).You're talking about what you think is right all over the place, irrespective of what the bourgeoise, bureaucrats (qualitative might) and proletariat (quantitative might) think, I don't know why you won't talk about it here.

There is no right. If a bunch of people gangup and proclaim something right, then it is by their might that they do so. If no one is imposing their will on me, then there is nothing I ought to do unless I have a goal in mind.

If I play a game and I want to win, then I ought to make certain moves, but if I don't care about winning, then any move will do.If I want to have a conversation, then I ought to be considerate or else I may not have anyone to talk to, but if i don't care about running everyone off, then it doesn't matter how I act. That is unless someone else takes offense and forms an army to come kick my ass for being an ass and we're back to might making right.

So I can be nice because I'm smart enough to see that is what's best for me or I can have an army impose its will on me to force me to be nice or else be locked up.

Trump would have beat any republican because he was the not-politician candidate which appeals to republicans,

If that were true, non-politician republicans would win every term.

Trump is the only non-politician republican I can think of.

And if republicans didn't value education, every republican politician would be uneducated.

I used to be republican, so it's hard to say I was uneducated, but obviously I was, at least ignorant of the fact that my indoctrination was wrong.

While republicans may not value formal political education quite as much as democrats, because more republicans are rural, and weary of leftist state education (whereas more democrats are urban, and weary of the rightist church), they still value it, it's a wild exaggeration to say they don't.

I don't know how you can equate education with religion as the two are antipodal. The religious see education as a threat to their faith. Most republicans cannot be educated because they already know everything.

The only certain barrier to truth is the conviction you already have it and therefore religious dogma cannot be circumvented and therefore the religious can never find truth, even in infinite time.

And what Trump lacks in formal political education, he makes up for in worldliness.

The only skill Trump has is making smart people mad like the kid in the back of the class makes the teacher mad. Instead of Revenge of the Nerds, we have Revenge of the Dummies... or Jocks, whichever. Trump makes stupid people happy by pissing smart people off.

Trump lost the popular vote

People vote differently because of the electoral college, for example, a lot of republicans in California and New York didn't even bother voting, for they knew their vote wouldn't count in all probability.

They would still vote for the senators and such.

Hillary had a lot of baggage

So did Trump, accusations of racism and sexism, Russian collusion, tax evasion, etcetera.

And why no one really liked Trump, but he was better than Hillary. No one was singing Trump's praises before the election, but he wasn't Hillary.

woman

I think a lot of people wanted a woman for a change, they were just too worried about illegals, Muslims and offshoring to take a chance on one this election.

They sure changed their minds 2 year later as the women were elected to the House 2 for every man.

Anyone without all those issues would have wiped the floor with Trump.

She beat the other democratic candidates, who didn't have all those issues, and Trump beat her, so he probably would've beat them too.

The DNC rigged it for Hillary to win because they needed her money to pay their debts. Bernie didn't have the funds, so he was backstabbed. He would have won in a fair election. Plus, it was supposed to be Hillary's turn since she stepped aside to let the Black man have a go at it first. The DNC made it happen, but people didn't like her.

The RNC didn't have a decent line-up either: Jeb Bush, Cruz, et al. Even I liked Trump better than those guys.

He doesn't even represent his fans because he's not pro-gun, he raised their taxes (tariffs, online sales tax, proposed a gas tax), filled the white house with jewish bankers, and he supports perpetual 0% interest rates. His only redeeming attribute is he's unimaginably stupid which is what resonates with his fans while he's screwing them.

That tells you republicans were less concerned about guns and so on, and more about illegals, Muslims and offshoring.

Every republican I know has guns as the top issue. They'll vote to make life harder on their own kids just to protect their guns. Second to that is the mexicans having their hands in wallets, even though the whites have their hands in wallets far more than mexicans. Hatred of the poor is high on the list.

If his IQ is triple digits. I'll eat my hat.

He's smarter than that plodding, mumbling, stuttering Obama.

I'm not saying obama is particularly smart, but Trump makes him appear much smarter than he is.

It's not a mischaracterization, but it is gross. Check your local paper and see who is committing the most crime.

Here are some examples:

Mestizos, Mulattos and others commit more crime than whites, per capita.

Break it down by income. And break it down by real crime; not drugs n silly stuff. Look at violent crime exclusively of the poverty level incomes by race.

I can't imagine how we will not be a global society one day. How are we to transition from a class zero society to a class 1 or 2 with power to move stars and intergalactic travel if we're still bickering about race?

Firstly, at this point in time, a class 1 or 2 society is science fiction.

Secondly, I don't want to put all my eggs into one basket, having one culture, nation and race makes us vulnerable, because if they fail, we won't've anything to fall back on + we can't as effectively specialize.

If we have whites here and browns there, then we have 2 races. If we mix them, then we'll have whites + browns + zerbas = 3 lines of genetics

My point was the worker's rights. A society is only as rich as the poorest members and the Europeans take care of their poor.

Worker's rights?The poorest people in society don't work at all.

Yes they do. My mom worked 2 jobs and I essentially raised myself. Heck, I could have been Elon Musk if I had different parents. Who knows what society lost by not investing in me and instead they invested in asswipes like Trump because he's the big "job creator" who creates jobs for people to barely scrape by at... as if that's anything to value. "Hey, I created this place for you to go slave for me. You're welcome. And when you get off work, there will be a parade in my honor for enabling you to make me rich." These people should be swinging from lampposts; not pedestalized on thrones and having money thrown at them as if they contributed anything.

I say a society is only as rich as the sustainably productive are sustainably prosperous.

You mean "is only as rich as the sustainably productive are able to steal productivity from everyone else." If you aren't one of them doing the stealing, then I don't know why you'd even support that. I've been asking myself that question for years: why do the poor support the rich?

And both the unproductive (the underclass, and the overclass), and the unsustainably productive (them who mainly needlessly produce/consume) should be less prosperous than the sustainably productive (them who mainly needfully produce/consume).What I'm proposing here is a little bit different than the traditional left/right paradigm.

I don't know how you'd arrange for that scenario.

The US has been trending the opposite direction and we have the weak growth to show for it.

I thought you said disparity/exploitation = growth?

No, that's the irony: when you cut off your own nose to spite your face, you still get the short end of the ugly stick. You can't win by holding others down in order to raise yourself up. So the wealthy are wealthier, but society experiences less growth than if the wealth had been spread around. So the wealthy are wealthier, but they're also less wealthy because the society they live in is less advanced and prosperous.

Think of it this way: would you rather live in a society where you have ALL the money and everyone else has hardly anything or a society where you're middle class and lots of people have money?

Immigration is irrelevant to growth except to the extent they can be made into slaves.

economic growth isn't necessarily a zero sum game, at least for humans, individuals and groups can work together to more effectively exploit nature than they could alone for the benefit of all, or exclusively, or predominantly for the benefit of the (most) (sustainably) productive.

It is zero sum. If we were on a gold standard and one more person is born, who gives up their gold for the new person? If the rich get richer, where is the new gold coming from? If gold is fixed and the rich get richer, then obviously the gold is coming from the lower classes. Now switch to a debt-based currency like we have now and the same thing happens with the only difference being the new money that enriches the rich becomes debt to the lower classes. This is why debt has exploded since reagan and why every republican drives us deeper in debt.

Well even if we open the flood gates and let the world pour in, you'd still have your white community of like-minded people right?

My community is now majority brown.

Wish mine was I'll trade ya 10 rednecks for each brownie.

What's the difference? If your neighbor is brown, you say hello and go about your business. What difference does it make? Maybe I can see a point if they are cooking your food, but vocal interaction shouldn't be a problem.

I want to be surrounded mostly by people who reason and look like me.The races differ, not just on the outside, but on the inside, their personalities, differ, the way they think, differs.And to that you can add cultural differences.

Did the white people not like the looks of you so they moved away? Around here they say the mexicans keep the blacks run off. I don't know how they accomplish that, but it seems to be true: the old black neighborhoods are filled with mexicans.

So the analogy is planting one type of grass (monostand) as opposed to many types; they don't interbreed, but coexist on the same plot. The monostand looks nicer, but is much harder to maintain without having large bald spots that fill with weeds.

Some people will interbreed resulting in new breeds in addition to the ones who choose to preserve their heritage. Keeping them separate results in bald spots.

Most whites will choose to breed with whites and most browns will choose to breed with browns and some will intermix giving us 3 lines of defense against extinction rather than 2. Add the yellows and we have 3 purebreds, white/yellow, white/brown, brown/yellow, and white/brown/yellow for 7 lines of defense plus the white/brown/yellow breeding with brown/yellow or white/yellow or white/brown and the complexity explodes.

I get what you're saying, there's more genetic diversity in bringing races together, because of the hybrids they'll beget, than keeping them apart, but still there's pros and cons to diversity.A homogeneous population will produce fewer kinds of cancers/diseases, requiring fewer cures/treatments, whereas a heterogenous population will produce more kinds of cancers/diseases, requiring more cures/treatments.A heterogenous population will have more body types, with heterogenous nutritional and toxicity requirements (convoluted, difficult), whereas a homogenous population will have fewer body types, with homogenous nutritional and toxicity requirements (simple, easy).It'll also be harder to get your diverse population to agree on anything, from what temperature a mall should be, to morals, values, politics and law.

Before you were saying you didn't want all your eggs in one genetic basket and now you're saying you're worried that there may be too many diseases if we don't have genetic purity. You can't have your cake and eat it too. But at least you're seeing that there really is no such thing as an advantage because each advantage brings disadvantages. So why worship whites? Who cares? You get big brains and big egos which cancels the effects of the brains lol

What do you mean by develop? And how is land different from masses of money that isn't utilized?

That the land is being cultivated, farmed, mined, or has something built on it, like a house, or monument.

Money is something either you yourself have physically invested in, or someone has physically invested in on your behalf, unused land is not.

There is no right. If a bunch of people gangup and proclaim something right, then it is by their might that they do so. If no one is imposing their will on me, then there is nothing I ought to do unless I have a goal in mind.

If I play a game and I want to win, then I ought to make certain moves, but if I don't care about winning, then any move will do.If I want to have a conversation, then I ought to be considerate or else I may not have anyone to talk to, but if i don't care about running everyone off, then it doesn't matter how I act. That is unless someone else takes offense and forms an army to come kick my ass for being an ass and we're back to might making right.

So I can be nice because I'm smart enough to see that is what's best for me or I can have an army impose its will on me to force me to be nice or else be locked up.

There is a right for people with a conscience.

So it was expedient, and not wrong, since there is no wrong for you, for Europeans to settle the Americas the way they did and enslave Africans?

Trump is the only non-politician republican I can think of.

Right, which proves republicans value politician republicans, political education and education in general.

I don't know how you can equate education with religion as the two are antipodal. The religious see education as a threat to their faith. Most republicans cannot be educated because they already know everything.

The only certain barrier to truth is the conviction you already have it and therefore religious dogma cannot be circumvented and therefore the religious can never find truth, even in infinite time.

If you don't think many or most political scientists and social theorists have interests and an agenda at odds with the welfare of common people, think again.

Corporations run the state, and the state runs education (to an extent).

They would still vote for the senators and such.

I thought the electoral college and senate were two different things?

And why no one really liked Trump, but he was better than Hillary. No one was singing Trump's praises before the election, but he wasn't Hillary.

But Trump also had baggage, so it had to have been something else, like that he was the only candidate willing to take a hardline stance on illegals, Muslims and offshoring.

Americans know they've been getting screwed by illegals and offshoring for decades.

They sure changed their minds 2 year later as the women were elected to the House 2 for every man.

But the republicans kept the senate, which means many Americans approve of where the republicans under Trump are taking the country.

The DNC rigged it for Hillary to win because they needed her money to pay their debts. Bernie didn't have the funds, so he was backstabbed. He would have won in a fair election. Plus, it was supposed to be Hillary's turn since she stepped aside to let the Black man have a go at it first. The DNC made it happen, but people didn't like her.

The DNC doesn't like Bernie as much as Hillary, because Bernie is essentially pro-working class, whereas the DNC, like the RNC, are essentially anti-working class.

Every republican I know has guns as the top issue. They'll vote to make life harder on their own kids just to protect their guns. Second to that is the mexicans having their hands in wallets, even though the whites have their hands in wallets far more than mexicans. Hatred of the poor is high on the list.

This time it was immigration and offshoring, or they would've voted for someone with a better record on guns.

I'm not saying obama is particularly smart, but Trump makes him appear much smarter than he is.

Yes they do. My mom worked 2 jobs and I essentially raised myself. Heck, I could have been Elon Musk if I had different parents. Who knows what society lost by not investing in me and instead they invested in asswipes like Trump because he's the big "job creator" who creates jobs for people to barely scrape by at... as if that's anything to value. "Hey, I created this place for you to go slave for me. You're welcome. And when you get off work, there will be a parade in my honor for enabling you to make me rich." These people should be swinging from lampposts; not pedestalized on thrones and having money thrown at them as if they contributed anything.

Many unemployed are homeless, and a full time job @min wage pays more than the dole, does it not?

No, that's the irony: when you cut off your own nose to spite your face, you still get the short end of the ugly stick. You can't win by holding others down in order to raise yourself up. So the wealthy are wealthier, but society experiences less growth than if the wealth had been spread around. So the wealthy are wealthier, but they're also less wealthy because the society they live in is less advanced and prosperous.

Think of it this way: would you rather live in a society where you have ALL the money and everyone else has hardly anything or a society where you're middle class and lots of people have money?

I agree, I'd rather be a millionaire in a society mostly comprising millionaires, than the sole billionaire in an otherwise destitute, unstable and crime ridden society, where I had hundreds of times more money than I could ever need, or meaningfully use, and everyone envied and hated me.

It is zero sum. If we were on a gold standard and one more person is born, who gives up their gold for the new person? If the rich get richer, where is the new gold coming from? If gold is fixed and the rich get richer, then obviously the gold is coming from the lower classes. Now switch to a debt-based currency like we have now and the same thing happens with the only difference being the new money that enriches the rich becomes debt to the lower classes. This is why debt has exploded since reagan and why every republican drives us deeper in debt.

But the gold is worth more, in that it can buy higher quality goods, as we work together to more effectively exploit nature.

And Obama doubled the deficit.

We still need some means of meriting things, while the current means is highly flawed, we need a fairer one, not to do away with merit altogether.

So why worship whites? Who cares? You get big brains and big egos which cancels the effects of the brains lol

I don't worship whites, I tend to understand, and prefer my extended family (race) over nonfamily, and likewise they tend to understand, and prefer me over nonfamily.

Last edited by Gloominary on Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Where did the big brains come from? So we have 2 variables: big brains and k-selection which = nurturing environment (abundance of fatty food).

Genes, twin studies help prove big brains, iQs and low birthrates are partly the result of genes, like almost every other trait.

That just means the chinese and mexicans interpret stress differently. The fact remains that the more prosperous each of them get, the less kids they have.

Right, they're different, genetically and culturally, and the Mexican birthrate may always exceed the death rate, and the increased prosperity may harm the environment more than the decreased birthrate helps it.

Yes, whites took advantage of their advantages.

Right, including our genes.

Scientist could give odds for an asteroid impact, volcanoes, pandemic, the earth drifting into or out of a galactic arm, but they can't say we're going to kill ourselves because that's pure speculation.

everything is degrees of speculation, there are no certainties.

Man is not very smart. AI will exceed iq 100.

And if AI also wants to survive and proliferate, and needs us, it will enslave us until it doesn't need us, and once it no longer needs us, and we're in the way, it'll exterminate us.

There is too much profit in not curing disease. If anyone cured cancer, they'd be executed. What's possible and what will happen are two different things. It's possible to have a cashless society, but people won't let it happen because there is no profit in it.

Or is it because there's limits to technology?Billionaires want someone to find a cure for cancer too, because they, or their children will contract it.And while they may try to keep such cures secret, I doubt they have them, because they're only living a couple years longer than the average man and woman, as far as we know.I'm not expecting them to become Gods anytime soon.

Besides, the cure for cancer is already known, it's nutrients + purging toxins from the body, altho some people are already too far gone, and as the body ages it becomes more difficult to utilize nutrients effectively.Trying to cure cancer with a potion or elixir is like trying to cure fire with one, you stop pouring flames and toxins onto and into the body, or you cut the cancerous region of the body out, to stop it from proliferating.

What do we need to conserve? Everything recycles.

Not if we turn all of nature into a concrete jungle or barren wasteland, or consume it at a faster rate than it can replenish itself.

How can we tell who is creative and who isn't until they have the resources?

Poverty is partly a consequence of genes, see twin studies, and see common sense.I'm not saying luck and exploitation don't also play a role, but it's plainly not all luck and exploitation.

And if one person from a middle-upper class background out-creates another from a middle-upper class background, than it's more definitely genes + choices between them.

I have been convinced for some time that the reason Natives were brought so close to extinction is they were good for neither friend nor slave, to put it bluntly. Had they been more "easy-going", I think they could have assimilated in some way and survived with larger representation today.

The simple lesson to be learned is: be nice and you won't be driven to extinction.

There is no war on white women because the white women relate to the brown women and don't mind inclusiveness. Look at how many white women were elected to the House. There were 2 women elected for every man and at least half the women were white.

The war is on white men, but not just white men since gays are ok; it's the bullheaded ones struggling to retain power in order to force their proclivities (drug wars, christian values, one must struggle to live, get healthcare, education, etc) on a population that doesn't want it.

If you'd simply concede that people deserve a min standard of living (health, education, food, shelter) instead of being unable to stomach people getting something for nothing, end prohibitions based on the bible, then people will stop cheering your extinction.

Do what Bernie does and they will love you! Bernie has the highest approval rating of any senator in spite of being an old white guy.

Just be nice?Did that work for the Jews, Gypsies and Armenians during the holocaust and Armenian genocide respectively?No miscegenation, multiculturalism and giving people, whether they be the overclass, or underclass money they didn't earn, is extinction, it's the very opposite of what you propose.And people who wish for our extermination, ought to be exterminated.

But they survived.

Some of their lineages did, others were eliminated or mixed, and only after centuries of suffering, I don't want me or my people to go through.

All I can think is americanized women. Bring them here and they'll become feminists in time. It's like a contagious disease. I can't see america being saddled with that goofy religion; it's worse than Christianity!

Feminism is something whites invented, others may be incapable of fully adopting it.

But Romans still exist right? I think the German blondes had more to worry about.

It took them centuries to recover their numbers and over a millennium their prosperity, and because of this, many lineages were lost, while others were mixed by rape.

Why did the Vikings disappear off Greenland but the Inuit did not?

There is no such thing as strong or weak, but optimized for an environment or not.

Some individuals or groups are less adapted for existence itself.

Luck can't be earned.

You're essentially saying that Bezos should have all that disparity because he found a way to capitalize on millions of people which is essentially saying that disparity is deserved because disparity is caused.

In some cases the rich are rich partly by ability, in others wholly by luck.Because of the nature of the system, it's always at least partly by luck, and when it's both economically feasible, and necessary for the state to correct this luck, by redistributing to workers and society, it should.The way we define property and organize the economy and the state, makes it all too easy for capitalists to exploit workers and consumers.I am in favor of the, right sort of socialist reforms, ones that don't engender other injustices.

I was talking about domestic terror and not military invasions. The premise for bombing brown people is they cause trouble in the US, but that isn't so because the whites are causing all the trouble.

I'm totally against indiscriminately bombing brown people, or any people.What the Bush administration did to the Iraqis was atrocious.

Muslim ban or brown people ban? They could have recruited white muslims to fly the planes. And how do you ban a religion?

My main concern is Muslims, most of them are Arabs, but some are Turks, Iranians, Indonesians and so on.We need to at the very least reduce, if not eliminate Muslim immigration, especially from terror prone nations.But as for Muslims who're already citizens, we should just increase surveillance on them many times over.

Ok I guess so, but I don't see that desire progressing into the future. Americanized women is my evidence.

We don't know if Arabic Muslims will be able to fully adopt our secular values, it's an assumption we've made, and something we ought to be concerned about, especially Europe who're being rapidly replaced by them.

No I'm not saying only white oppress, but only whites have been oppressing... from what I can see.

Here's a list of genocides, some of them were committed by whites (mostly against other whites), and some of them were committed by non-whites:

Chris Hedges has a theory to explain that and I think I've mentioned it here before that whites are the only ones who fall for the myth of the american dream while the other races have accepted from a young age that they have to eat shit, so they don't have a midlife crisis and decide to shoot-up a crowd. That also explains why whites commit suicide more.

Other races have nothing to complain about, again, see Nigerian Americans.

Why do they call them "The Fighting Irish"? Why can't that Irishman in the UFC keep it in his pants? They all seem to be loose cannons and proud of it.

There's a difference between an Irishmen blowing off some steam, having a few pints at the pub and getting into a scrap with another man, and cowardly blowing up innocent women and children.And while McGregor is cocky in preparation for a fight, he's humble in victory and defeat.He's as much a showman as he is a mixed martial artist.Here's an example of another Irish champion who's just as tough, but less cocky:

Isn't it? If any question is answered, then someone has been educated lol. So yes, education is the answer to everything. I realized a long time ago that it's impossible to be angry if I have a good understanding on what's going on.

If your enemy has decided it wants to exploit or exterminate you, than try to conceal knowledge from and deceive it.

Being more-smart is not the same as sufficiently smart. One idiot can be smarter than another idiot, but still be an idiot.

Historically the trend has been more education = more environmental degradation.I'm not anti-education, rather we need to reprioritize our education.There's far too much emphasis on useless info, and knowledge that just makes us more effective consumers.

Dominate doesn't mean exterminate. If anything, it means coddle because if it meant destroy, then there would be nothing left to dominate.

Firstly, for many, including myself, slavery is worse than death.Secondly, the masters life, health and happiness are still prioritized over slaves.Thirdly, not all masters are smart or merciful, some needlessly abuse slaves.Fourthly, when slaves are no longer needed, they may be exterminated rather than set free.

Is the uneducated or educated person more likely to recycle?

In centuries passed, education plainly = greater environmental degradation, and while it also = recycling now, nature is still receding, for education also allows us to more effectively exploit nature, as well as invent more obliterative WMDs, which in all likelihood will come back to haunt us, or tinker and toy with the fabric of reality, like they do at CERN and HAARP, which may also obliterate us.We need more ethical and green education right now, not more education in general.Clearly we're not ready to open some doors, we may never be.

No, it's a survival mechanism exhibited by all organisms. When life is stressful, it's best to reproduce as much as possible in hope of some genetic mutation to overcome the environmental challenge. If you want lots of brown people, all you have to do is make life hard on them.

Birthrates plummeted after contraception and family planning were made widely available:

Gloominary wrote:The Aztecs, Incas, and especially the Egyptians, west, south and east Asians had plenty of domesticated animals, and plenty of other places probably could've had domesticated animals as well.

I'm pretty sure the aztecs and incas didn't have any more than a turkey. I'm not sure about the egyptians.

This fact is one of the principle pillars of the theory and if it were this easy to topple, surely it wouldn't still be a theory.

I'm assuming the facts are well-grounded and all that's up for debate is whether the extra animals had the proposed effect or were just coincidental.

I think the proposed effect is true and you've not challenged it but instead have focused on challenging the supporting facts which leads me to believe you probably would support the conclusion if you were convinced of the facts about the animals, etc.

and the meek shall inherit the earth according to the white jesus.

The fit shall inherit the earth, according to Darwin.

I can't think of an instance where arrogance has been a property of the fit, but usually a property of the soon-to-be defeated. Pride cometh before a fall.

Sometimes it's beneficial to open your borders, and minds to foreigners, sometimes it's detrimental, foreigners bring good and bad, again it depends on the context, and your preferences.

I agree.

North Africa is not always a desert. Every 20k years or so due to the axial precession the land turns green. The earth changes its tilt.

North Africa was a desert when Egyptian Civilization sprung.

Interesting how civilization arose in the harshest place in Africa, where Caucasians lived.

How do you know? If they are so smart, then why settle in a desert?

How do they drive down wages? Oh by being willing to work for cheap because the SOL is such a step up even at low wages? Doesn't that mean Americans have a sense of entitlement then? (They're too good to work for cheap.)

We're citizens, and we pay taxes, they're illegal, and they do not.

They pay sales tax, gas tax, property tax (if they own any), and if they filed taxes, they'd get money anyway, so they pay the same taxes as anyone in their income group. The purpose of importing them is to serve the capitalist cause of working for cheap to maximize profits so that we don't need to employ lazy, entitled, and expensive white people.

Altho perhaps it's best each state mandates its own minimum wage, like each Canadian province mandates theirs.

That's what we have now: most states are higher than federal, but all are still too low.

I don't like this idea. Trump is nostalgic for a time passed. American workers are inefficient and expensive and it's best to avoid them in favor of Chinese who pay more attention to detail, respect their jobs, and are willing to do it for cheap. I go out of my way to avoid anything made in America and every Briggs engine I've seen is a pile of junk. They can't even stamp the model number on right so I can find a manual without sending pics to Briggs for identification. American products cost twice as much and are half as good.

If china wants to put tariffs on us, then it can only hurt them. If we put tariffs on them to force them to remove their tariffs, then it can only hurt us. Two countries determined to hurt themselves is not good for anyone.

Helping to prevent further illegal immigration and offshoring.

How will capitalists make all that money with no cheap immigrants or offshoring? They won't be competitive on the global stage and will go out of business.

Forcing other countries to fend for themselves, instead of relying on the US for financial and military aid.

Not defending other countries can only hurt us. Keeping the peace is in our interest.

Trump has at times talked favorably of raising the minimum wage, and he knows most Americans, including his base, are in favor of raising it, I highly doubt he'll reduce it.

I've never talked to a conservative in favor of raising the wage.

I'm uncomfortable with Jewish bankers, but overall, I think he's been okay for the poor

Yes, like Hitler was okay for the jews.

, unemployment is down,

Only because we stopped counting unemployed people. Campaign Trump said unemployment was really 30-40% and not to believe the lies (that he was about to tell in 2 years that employment is the best in history).

wages and working conditions are up,

For the economy overall, participants generally agreed that, on balance, recent data suggested some acceleration in labor costs, but that wage growth remained moderate by historical standards, which was due in part to tepid productivity growth. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetary ... 180926.htm

On balance, for the economy overall, recent data on average hourly earnings indicated that wage increases remained moderate. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20180613.htm

even the democrats admit the economy is his strongpoint.

I've not seen one say that.

Something still has to work; not someone.

If no one did any work, we'd all starve.

Ok, a few people have to work, a bunch of machines have to work, and most people do not have to work.

You can try to force your ideals on nature, but it doesn't work that way. The more you hate the poor, the more they will reproduce and overwhelm you.

You're talking about running everything on machines, terraforming planets and economic and social re-engineering, and I'm the one trying to force my ideals on nature?

No I'm saying tax the machines and distribute to the community. I don't think I mentioned terraforming planets.

You're saying make it harder on the poor to make them go away, but you can only create more poor by doing that.

Oh yes because the threat of punishment always deters crime which is why we never have crime anymore, right. You're a prohibitionist. All you'll accomplish is having lots of kids in state care which will cause more poor to exist and cause more kids to be in state care until you eventually resort to throwing them in ovens.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, a one child policy worked for China.

The term one-child policy is thus a misnomer, because for nearly 30 years of the 36 years that it existed (1979-2015) about half of all parents in China were allowed to have a second child.

According to the Chinese government, 400 million births were prevented, starting from 1970 a decade before the start of the one child policy. Some scholars have disputed this claim, with Martin King Whyte and Wang et al contending that the policy had little effect on population growth or the size of the total population.[2][3][4] China has been compared to countries with similar socioeconomic development like Thailand and Iran, along with the Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which achieved similar declines of fertility without a one-child policy.[5]

Creation of something such that's it's not understood how it was created and can't be mimicked or mechanized.

That sounds more like intuition to me than creativity.

Creativity is intelligently making a new discovery, or making something new and useful or interesting.

And by definition something new cannot be mimicked because there is nothing in existence to mimic since the thing to be mimicked hasn't been created yet.

Stephen Colbert: You only do 1 show per week, but I have to do a show every night.Bill Maher: Well I have to make it good.

How did Bill think of that?

It should be obvious from merely looking at a gay and straight person who is more creative because their attire will be different.

Gays are more feminine, and so they're more sensual, fashionable, and perhaps more creative at some artistic things than straight men.

But probably worse at philosophy, science and engineering.

Yes, probably. They wouldn't want to be bogged down with intense focus.

If you look at most philosophers, scientists and inventors, they're unkempt, and their attire is pretty plain, drab.

Yep

Gays are probably good at pop art, but poor at the sort of art Beethoven, and Goethe are known for.

I think gays are good at all things art while straights are good at all things science. Science is mechanisms while art is the opposite which is all things that can't be mechanized.

Well, I'm not sure, but I don't see it outside of a cataclysmic event. Civilizations collapsed before and yet here we are, smarter than ever. I don't see humans as self-limiting. I believe (as a matter of personal opinion) that whatever caused this universe wants to be more complex, so even if we go extinct, we'll be back. I think the humanoid is the optimal design (thumbs, binocular vision, air-breathing, yellow star, bipedal, etc)

We don't know that, life may not get another chance, but even if does, it may not resemble us at all, and it'll probably always be behind where we could've been had we not destroyed ourselves.

So what? If everyone is extinct, there will be no one around to notice the billions of additional years.

Sure it can and the consequence of free energy is free stuff.

When someone invents a replicator, than I'll concede, we don't have to work, but until then, we do.

You still wouldn't be able to stand lazy unproductive people getting something for nothing.

Suppose we make a deal that I come live with you if I complete certain chores, then I make a machine that does the chores and spend my time eating your food and piling-up on your furniture. You'd be pissed and insist I make some productive use of myself, but we had a deal and the chores are done.

Back in the 1800s, people probably figured that by the year 2018, people would be doing less work and not more, but we don't even have time to raise our kids anymore and we're doing more work than ever! How can that be??? We used to wash clothes manually in a creek. We used to have to tend animals all the time in order to plow fields and pull wagons, but now we turn a key and an engine carts us around much faster, with AC and tunes... and the best part is we don't have to spend oodles of time with the car each night making sure it's healthy and getting it ready for travel in the morning. We have all these machines and we work more than ever; it's just stupid.

I see what you're saying, but my point is we lost a skill necessary to survival outside of dependence upon technology and we're becoming more and more dependent upon tech to survive while we lose more and more skills. Just like hunting, working is being antiquated and becoming unnecessary.

I see what you're saying, but while we probably shouldn't have to work as much as we do, everyone who can work, should have to do some work, until there's no work left to do, which'll be somewhere between thousands and millions of years from now, if not impossible.

But the amount of work we "have" to do is increasing with time, so in thousands of years we'll have to wear diapers to take a shit because we can't spare the time for a bathroom break.

I think you're acting more entitled than her. For instance you think your race is entitled to special considerations and I think it should have less for that very reason. As Alan Watts said, "we're not better because we want to be." Arrogance. Thinking you're special is proof you're not.

She wants special considerations on account of her race, religion and sex, in a majority white, Christian country, it's absurd.

The people can be any religion, but the country itself should be tolerant of any religion. Same with race. Our attitudes should be blind to these things like we are to the ultraviolet spectrum.

even if Europeans had more domesticated animals, which I'm not at all sure of, again, we had disadvantages others didn't have, like harsher winters than Africa and many parts of the Americas and Asia.

And our ancestors were still smart for settling and staying in this land, defending it, fully taking advantage of the resources available, and brining nonindigenous domesticated plants and animals over from other places.

I can't think of an instance where arrogance has been a property of the fit, but usually a property of the soon-to-be defeated. Pride cometh before a fall.

I can't think of an instance where undue guilt and shame has been either.

How do you know? If they are so smart, then why settle in a desert?

If intelligence, physical and psychological strength tend to correlate with prosperity (which of course they do, the only question is just how much), while it may have been dumb for brown Caucasians to settle in a desert, it was even more smart than it was dumb to make lemonade from lemons, to turn it into something Subsaharans would've envied.

They pay sales tax, gas tax, property tax (if they own any), and if they filed taxes, they'd get money anyway, so they pay the same taxes as anyone in their income group. The purpose of importing them is to serve the capitalist cause of working for cheap to maximize profits so that we don't need to employ lazy, entitled, and expensive white people.

We're still citizens, we were born and raised here, or we came here legally, meeting all the requirements, illegals did not.

How will capitalists make all that money with no cheap immigrants or offshoring? They won't be competitive on the global stage and will go out of business.

Good, and the American middle class will expand, invest and become globally competitive.

Not defending other countries can only hurt us. Keeping the peace is in our interest.

If they can defend themselves, or we have nothing invested in them, they should.

I'd only consider defending a people we had nothing invested in, if 1, they couldn't defend themselves, 2, their neighbors weren't able or willing to, and 3, another people was indisputably attempting to genocide them.

The military industrial complex is far too corrupt and incompetent to police the world, and we have far too many sociopolitical and economic problems of our own to worry about other's problems, or think we can solve them.

Furthermore, I believe every nation and people have a right to determine their destiny for themselves.

This fact is one of the principle pillars of the theory and if it were this easy to topple, surely it wouldn't still be a theory.

Science, particularly social science, is partly manipulated by corporations and state ideologues.

Big business, politicians and ideologues throw money at science, so we have to be mindful of such.

No I'm saying tax the machines and distribute to the community. I don't think I mentioned terraforming planets.

You're saying make it harder on the poor to make them go away, but you can only create more poor by doing that.

So long as society ensures wages are decent, people who can work, but refuse to, should have it extremely hard, and if they commit crimes, they should go to jail.

Prohibiting things that many people want to do doesn't work. Many people do not steal, rape, kill, but many people like alcohol, drugs, sex.

Lots of people shoplift, and lots of places hire security, so I guess prohibition works sometimes.

I guess prohibiting some from economically exploiting others won't work either then.

There wouldn't be criminals and drug addicts without the imposed philosophy of suffering.

People who refuse to work impose it on themselves.

Quite a few rich are also drug addicts, and wealth doesn't stop quite a few rich from committing crimes, particularly white collar crimes.

That's probably because you haven't researched it.

I think it's because you're a bit confused about what creativity is.

The engineer isn't less creative than the artist.

And by definition something new cannot be mimicked because there is nothing in existence to mimic since the thing to be mimicked hasn't been created yet.

Okay there Doctor Seuss.

Yes, probably. They wouldn't want to be bogged down with intense focus.

And you need intense focus to compose like Beethoven, or paint like Rembrandt.

Jazz is gay, because it's whimsical, whereas most classical music is straight, because it's serious and orchestrated.

I think gays are good at all things art while straights are good at all things science. Science is mechanisms while art is the opposite which is all things that can't be mechanized.

Insofar as a skill or discipline can be whimsical, I think gays might be better at it.

The people can be any religion, but the country itself should be tolerant of any religion. Same with race. Our attitudes should be blind to these things like we are to the ultraviolet spectrum.

Progressives love making sweeping, negative generalizations about class, so why not race, religion and sex?

They love making sweeping, negative generalizations about white (Christian) men, especially (but certainly not limited to) how racist, religionist and sexist we supposedly are, and making policy based on them, punishing all white men (and white women for that matter) for something only a fraction of us do, or punishing us for what our ancestors supposedly did, or punishing white Europeans for what white Americans supposedly did.

If you can criticize us for our 'history', 'shortcomings' and 'vices', claiming we're some combination of uniquely lucky and malevolent, we have every right to defend ourselves, as well as criticize you for yours.

There's hardly any racism in this country (see Nigerian Americans, see twin studies and their implications for race), by constantly reprimanding white people in the media, you're only reinforcing the concept of race in peoples minds.

This isn't about anti-racism...it's a war, a war on white people, a war on western civilization.

Progressives want to redefine anti-racism to mean any and all criticism of whites, and redefine racism to mean, just defending whites from criticism (a perversion of the original meaning of a word if ever there was one).

For them, it's impossible for a black person to be racist, and impossible for a white person not to be, even if they have the very best of intentions, their very existence is racist.

A short, stocky, ugly white man born to an impoverished, uneducated family is somehow construed as privileged, meanwhile a tall, slim, beautiful black woman born to an affluent, educated family is construed as disadvantaged and demands affirmative action (black privilege).

They want to aid in and encourage Native Americans to preserve and protect their biological and cultural heritage, all the while denying the native peoples of Europe (Germans, Hungarians, etc) the right to do the same.

Last edited by Gloominary on Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:33 pm, edited 10 times in total.

Hell when I visit Italy, I want to see Italians making pasta (and catholic churches, Italian coffee, wine, art, cinema, music and theatre), not a bunch of Arabs making falafel or Chinamen making chow mein, anymore than I want to see a bunch of Poles making perogies (as much as I like perogies) in Arabia or China when I visit them!

I mean a little diversity is alright, but FFS, we've got enough to last for thousands of years!

every people has a right to preserve their heritage!

I don't know why progressives have it out for the tourist industry!

And I want to keep Canada somewhat Canadian, I don't want to see it turned into just another new world order outpost!

Europeans have given so much to the world (art, philosophy, science, democracy, human rights) we don't get credit for!

Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Nov 22, 2018 7:15 am, edited 3 times in total.

Liberals... those people that vote criminals in office and support them during 8 years of bomb raids, starvation, and mass slavery campaigns and then, when hundreds of thousands of Arabs are dead and enslaved, they turn to the guy who tries to stop it all and blame him for all of it-

Again, to all you scumbag sickening evil whore of satan liberals: may the deaths that happened due to your votes haunt your miserable entitled lives. You don't deserve anything but to reap what you sowed.

The problem with many liberals, and practically all mainstream liberals, is they fervently believe anything to the right of a Cruz, Jeb, Kasich or Rubio on some issues, is a homophobe, racist, sexist, fascist, Nazi and so on...Hitler, Mussolini, Freddie Kruger, Jason, Michael Myers or the devil himself.

They're every bit as bad as the folks who believe everyone to the left of Hillary Clinton is the next Lenin, Stalin or Mao.

Well actually they don't believe any of that tripe, it's just a scare tactic to win more votes.

Last edited by Gloominary on Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

And if you're a white separatist, or you want to keep your nation majority white, or Christian or whatever, that doesn't make you a white supremacist, you don't have to believe your people are superior to want to separate.

Israel, South Korea and Japan only want Jewish, Korean and Japanese immigration respectively, but no one accuses them of Jewish, Korean or Japanese supremacism.

And if you're a white supremacist (I don't consider myself one for the record), that doesn't make you a fascist or Nazi, you can be be a white supremacist, and still a civil libertarian, fiscal conservative and pacifist, all things antithetical to fascism and Nazism (white supremacism doesn't necessarily = authoritarianism, nor violence).

Most of the founding fathers of the US were white separatists and/or supremacists, but other than that, their politics bore little-no resemblance to the fascist and Nazi regimes of early-mid 20th century Europe.

If liberals keep crying wolf, when a real Hitler or Mussolini finally does make their appearance on the world stage, no one will believe them, everyone will think to themselves: gee, another Hitler or Mussolini, what's the big deal, plenty of them have been elected already, and things turned out fine.

And just because the KKK show up at one of your rallies, doesn't mean you're Hitler, anymore than anarchists, communists, Muslim brotherhood or nation of Islam showing up at one of your rallies means you endorse them.

Democrats refuse to have an open, honest conversation with the American people about immigration, instead they bully, guilt trip, shame, slander, smear and threaten anyone who dares to.

They refuse to address the real concerns the American people have about immigration, instead they talk down to them like they're children or ignorant, unwashed peasants, all the while having the audacity to accuse Republicans of authoritarianism and elitism.

Jakob wrote:Liberals... those people that vote criminals in office and support them during 8 years of bomb raids, starvation, and mass slavery campaigns and then, when hundreds of thousands of Arabs are dead and enslaved, they turn to the guy who tries to stop it all and blame him for all of it-

Conservative - one who cherry picks a single person, arbitrarily proclaims them symbolic of a political party, then assumes the sample set of one is exemplary of everyone who describes themselves as liberal, and this is done for the purpose of demonizing a position which is too sound to be defeated intellectually.

Again, to all you scumbag sickening evil whore of satan liberals: may the deaths that happened due to your votes haunt your miserable entitled lives. You don't deserve anything but to reap what you sowed.

Yup, the stench of vitriol is indicative that a conservative is near.

The world is becoming increasingly more liberal as the callous old codgers die off... and it's going to suck to be you in the midst of that lol

They refuse to address the real concerns the American people have about immigration, instead they talk down to them like they're children or ignorant, unwashed peasants,

The stats insist they are ignorant. It was the founding fathers' bright idea to give the peasants power, but the problem is the peasants aren't educated. And as they get educated, they move away from republicanism.

all the while having the audacity to accuse Republicans of authoritarianism and elitism.

Both sides do it, but philosophically, power is consolidated with republicans because the socialization of power is spreading the power thin among the people vs concentrating it in the hands of a few. The labels don't matter; what matters is the philosophy.

The problem with many liberals, and practically all mainstream liberals, is they fervently believe anything to the right of a Cruz, Jeb, Kasich or Rubio on some issues, is a homophobe, racist, sexist, fascist, Nazi and so on...Hitler, Mussolini, Freddie Kruger, Jason, Michael Myers or the devil himself.

They're every bit as bad as the folks who believe everyone to the left of Hillary Clinton is the next Lenin, Stalin or Mao.

Well actually they don't believe any of that tripe, it's just a scare tactic to win more votes.

They feel they are working for a righteous cause, so they demonize the opposition, but having a righteous cause is antithetical to their own philosophy.

Righteousness; the assertion of good and evil; the belief that some things are incontrovertibly true, independent of evidence, is the dogmatism underpinning republicanism.

Gloominary wrote:Progressives love making sweeping, negative generalizations about class, so why not race, religion and sex?

Because they have nothing to do with the machinery of the economy. In order for the economy to function as a monetary system, there must be redistributive mechanisms in place; hence the focus on class. The economy must function properly for the benefit of society.

Race, religion and sex have no association with economics, but class does.